Community Safety and Domestic Violence

8/13/2019 Community Safety and Domestic Violence

1/25

COMMUNITY SAFETY, THE FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

For centuries non-intervention in the private life of the family was the states

justification for abdicating responsibility for the safety of women and children in the

home. Feminist research and activism from the 1970s building on nineteenth century

feminism !ill 1"#9 $1970%& 'obbe 1"7"(( has chipped away at this hegemonic

construction of privacy revealing its role in covering up male abuse)violence in the

home* now commonly referred to as domestic violencei+i,,ey 197& obash and

obash 1979& /orowsi et al 19"& 2anmer and 3aunders 19"& 4aler 19"&

!aynard 19"5& +lec 19"7& !ama 19"9(. 'ontinuing feminist research and activism

have gradually provoed changing and more appropriate responses to domestic

violence through policy development and new legislation but inade6uate* insecure

fundingiiremains a critical barrier to progress.

he purpose of this paper is to loo at the historical development of initiatives against

domestic violence which have been largely the result of feminist organising(

e8amining the influence of community safety discourse and activity. uring the late

twentieth century* campaigns and interventions can be analysed if rather crudely( into

two main organisational strands see able 1(. n the one hand the vital influence of

the womens refuge movement largely radical feminist inspired( which has* to a

degree* maintained a position of woring outside the state* and on the other hand

feminists and others some with a community safety perspective( organising within

and through the state. uring this time crime control strategy was moving towards

more punitive approaches !uncie* :000( but two other relevant strands developed

concurrently& one focussing on concern for victims and the other focussing on

1


2/25

enhancing safety at the community level. ;ll of these strands have had an impact on

responding to domestic violence* as we shall see* but in this paper < will e8plore why 4hat

contradictions were raised in addressing domestic violence using a community safety

framewor> ;nd* what lessons can be learned from the unfolding development of

interventions against domestic violence> < e8plore first feminist theory on the family

and womens safety and how this has impacted on feminist initiatives against male

violence. < follow this with an e8amination of community safety initiatives*

deconstructing ?community and ?safety. Finally* < argue that 4estern understandings

of domestic violence have lead to a focus on state)agency responses* underpinned by

gendered discourses of caring.

Feminist theory on the family and male violence against women

he notion of ?family has been* and often still is* deployed as the central motif around

which responsibility for womens safety has traditionally been organised.


3/25

in marriage from criminal prosecution until 1991. ;s Aaffine argues* the reason it

too so long to be abolished in all jurisdictions is that its abolition challenged the view

of women as the possessions and passive objects of their husbands desires 199 cited

in Bees :000* p. 57(iii.

raditional family discourse constructs women as mens possessions and their safety

as in the safeeeping of specific male relatives varying according to cultural and

historical location(.


4/25

binary opposites of safety and ris* security and fear* privacy and invasion e8ist within

the home for many 4ardhaugh 1999* p. 9(. 3o* feminist research from the late

1970s revealed the family to be a potential place of an8iety and danger for women and

children due to male physical* se8ual and emotional violence obash and obash

1979& /orowsi* !urch and 4aler 19"& !aynard* 19"5& 2anmer and 3aunders

19"& 3tar and Flitcraft 19"5& +lec 19"7& elly 19""& Gllo and /ograd 19""& !ama*

19"9& 3tano 19""& !ullender and !orley 199& Hichie 199#(.

2owever* there is a problem in conceptualising the family as either totally gender

neutral or completely divided along gendered lines& both approaches failing to capture

the multiple gendered discourses and practices associated with home and family which

are e8perienced in different ways depending on other social differences& class* ?race

and se8uality spring to mind. 4e need to be aware of these comple8ities if we are to

enhance our understanding of the family in relation to violence against women by male

partners. hey help us to understand why a woman cannot ?just leave a violent

relationship and why members of the public rarely as an abusive man why he does he

not ?just leave 3tar :00(.

Feminist analyses of the family have been enormously influential in opening up to

6uestion the whole area of power in gendered relationships. 3uch analyses* combined

with feminist principles of organising* have also been the driving force in setting up

and running of services for women such as refuges)shelters and rape crisis centres.

!oreover* these analyses have been relatively successful in influencing social policy

initiatives against domestic violence in /ritain and < now turn to loo at these

initiatives.


5/25

Feminism: theory and initiatives against male violence (see Table 1)

;s we have seen* historically* womens safety was a privatised ?non-issue as states

derogated security responsibilities ostensibly to male members of womens families.

;s late as the 1970s it was commonly assumed that women faced danger only in

public spaces ?stranger danger(* hence police advice on womens safety

recommended they tae a range of precautions on the streets* putting the onus onto

women for their own personal safety. 4omen were and are( already eenly aware of

such public dangers and tend to adjust their behaviour patterns in response to violence

as well as the threat of violence e.g. ?< wouldnt have waled through that par at

night or ?< wouldnt tae that short cut 3tano 19"7(.

Iiolence has been widely viewed in the feminist literature as an effective device for

regulating women and the female body. he process of eeping physically safe has

been seen as one mode of ?performative femininity 3tano 1997 drawing on Judith

/utlers idea of gender as performative(. he threat of invasion or damage to the body

through se8ual violence restricts many womens uses and perceptions of different

spaces 2anmer and 3aunders 19"(. 4hilst remaining the case* more recent research

on violence has emphasised womens active resistance to violence and to the social

e8pectation that women will be fearful osela 1997* 3tano 1997(.


6/25

by voluntary labour* which developed into the 4omens ;id refuge movement as we

now it todayv. here was* however* some local state involvement even at this early

stage in that a handful of B; housing departments provided womens groups with

refuge premises. hese premises were often in poor condition but* for the first time*

women who had nowhere else to go were offered a place of safety.


7/25

Table 1 Key initiatives against domestic violence since the 1970s

Date Feminist initiatives

outside the state

Feminist !"ommunit#

sa$et# initiatives

inside the state

Comment

1970s

197

1975

19"0s

19"

19"7

19""

19"9

1990

199

4omens ;id 4;(Hefuges

Aational 4omens ;id

Federation A4;F(

?ae /ac the Aight&

?4omen against the 'uts&

!iners 4ives groups&

4omens +eace Kroups

etc.

Bocal 4; groups wor to

forge lins with 2ousing

epartments and 3ocial3ervices

A4;F established first

dedicated Aational I

2elpline service

@stablishment of the first

local multi-agency forums

on I

+remises provided byB;s often in poor

condition.

Kovernment 3elect

'ommittee on Iiolence

in !arriage.

; small number of B;

supported 4omens

'entres* 'ommunity

3afety teams* 4omens

and @6uality Lnits set up

in metropolitan areas.

'o-operation mainly

women in B; 2ousing

epartments.

2ome ffice 'rime

+revention Lnit set up

?3afer 'ities*

governments crime

prevention programme

@stablishment of the first

local multi-agency

forums on I.

2ome ffice 'irculars

1)1990 and #0)1990

2ome ;ffairs 3elect

'ommittee @n6uiry intoI

Hefuges overcrowded yetprovide safety)support&

womens voluntary labour.

o educate the public and

inform women about their

options.

Hecommended min. of 1 family

place in a refuge per 10*000

pop& target remains unfulfilled.

Feminist activist groups raise

issues of womens safety* self

defence etc.& women members

of B; Lnits raise womens fear

of crime* domestic and se8ual

violence.

3cepticism encountered& hard

wor forging lins& co-

operation uneven& support ate8ecutive levels problematic.

Funded a small number of I

projects in 1990s.

; noteworthy e8ample being

Beeds


8/25

199-

1995

199

199#

199#

199"

1999-

:00:

1999

1999

:001

:00

4; input to /rooside

'hannel ( Jordache

family I plotline

First I cinemaadvertisement distributed

by 4; and supported by

2ome ffice

4; lobbied for change to

Aational I website

www.womensaid.org.u

and ?The Gold Book

Aational I 2elpline

First I cinemaadvertisement distributed

by 4; and supported by

2ome ffice

Family Baw ;ct +art


9/25

4hilst refuges have been characterised as being organised on radical and socialist

feminist principles and 4omens Lnits and domestic violence forums on liberal

feminist principles* the reality on the ground has been far more comple8& Cboth

socialist and radical feminist have engaged with the state* the former via local

authorities and the latter through such organisations as refuge groupsE 'harles :000=

15(. he later development of blac and postmodern feminism emphasised issues of

diversity and the need to tae account of such differences in service provision.

Feminists often too an eclectic approach looing at optimum strategies in particular

social and political conte8ts.

uring the 19"0s and 1990s feminist scholarship was demonstrating growing

evidence of the incidence and e8tent of domestic violence suffered by women

worldwide& also male pro-feminist scholars started to research male oppression and

violence notably Jeff 2earn 19"7* 199"(. Hefuge worers were starting the long* hard

tas of forging lins with sympathetic individuals in local government* especially in

housing departments* and the police* to encourage improved responses to women

e8periencing)fleeing violence* albeit with mi8ed results 4omens ;id :00(. ;t the

same time womens units and e6uality units were being set up in mainly metropolitan(

local authorities and here women)feminists put fear of crime* ?domestic and se8ual

violence on to local government agendas for the first time 3tano 199"= 5(.


10/25

omm!nity safety: theory and initiatives (see Table 1)

'ommunity safety represented an alternative and more optimistic approach towards

tacling crime. 2owever* community safety represented a tiny proportion of the

criminal justice system as a whole& in 199)9 for instance it formed just over 1 per

cent of the annual criminal justice budget 'rawford 199"= #(. 4ithin this small

budget* property crimes in public places were over-prioritised with an emphasis on

funding situational and environmental projects with social projects playing a relatively

minor role.


11/25

First 'rawford cites the ?growing strain on the criminal justice system* evidenced by

the increasing rate of recorded crime and the numbers of people passing through the

system ibid p. (.


12/25

Gearnshire 1997( and the /ritish 'rime 3urvey :000 found that just under one third

of incidents were reported /ritish 'rime 3urvey @ngland and 4ales :000(. Hesearch

in the L3 found that about one-seventh of all domestic assaults come to the attention

of the police Florida KovernorMs as Force on omestic and 3e8ual Iiolence 1997*

p. (& female victims of domestic violence are # times less liely to report crime to law

enforcement as female victims of stranger violence ;merican +sychological

;ssociation 199#* p. 10(& when an injury was inflicted upon a woman by her intimate

partner* she reported the violence to the police only 55 per cent of the time and was

even less liely to report violence when she did not sustain injury /ureau of Justice

1995* p. 5(. Fifth* an increasing recognition that the ?formal processes of criminal

justice D have only a limited effect in controlling crime D and si8th this has affected

the wider public D and seventh D a criminological shift in focus away from the

offender D towards the offence Das well as the place and role of the victim ibid pp.

)5(.

'learly* the discourses 'rawford 199"( identifies as contributing to the focus on

crime prevention)community safety differs from the discourses which have lead to the

development of wor against domestic violence. raditionally in criminology* as in

wider society* male violence in the private sphere has been ignored* and so there was

little if any focus on the domestic violence offender or victim for that matter(.

2owever* the new concern for the victim* which developed out of such discourses* did

find common ground with feminist discourses in regard to supporting female victims.

/y the 1990s many local authorities* police forces and the 2ome ffice started to tae

on board issues of women and violence. he ;ssociation of 4omens Lnits in Bocal

1:


13/25

Kovernment released ?+esponding with #uthority 1991( as a call for local authorities

to become actively involved in discovering support systems to alleviate all inds of

violence against women* including fear of crimevii3tano 1995(. /y the mid 1990s*

crime prevention advice was a centrepiece of the 'onservative governments campaign

against crime but it was still the case that advice to women remained in the crime

prevention framewor rather than a framewor which looed to prevent violence

against women 3tano 1990a(.

"omm!nity and#or "$afety%

For many the term ?community safety gained ascendance over the term ?crime

prevention due to its inclusivity* referring not merely to crime in the community but

to wider socio-economic issues. 4hilst looing at ?safety rather than ?crime was

attractive in that it seemed to offer the opportunity to address problems of social

disadvantage* the unconsidered use of the concept ?communityviii in community safety

discourse undermined such opportunities. ;ssuming that people in a community all

have the same interests at heart that intervention)s should be local or neighbourhood

based and developed from the ?bottom up* in partnership* and dependant on analyses

of local conte8ts 'rawford 199"= 9( may sound well and good* but feminist theory has

taught us to be wary of non-structured approaches and gender-neutral language serving

to conceal masculinist interests.

Kender is a ey idea of late modernity and yet gendered analyses are often missing

from* or marginalised in* criminological wor on other important ideas of the same

period such as ris* globalisation and social control see e.g. @ricson and 2aggerty

1


14/25

1997* Goung 1999* Karland :001(. he e8clusive nature of such theorising both

reflects and constructs our social world as ?masculine. Heading around the

community safety)prevention field demonstrates the star lac of gendered analyses in

the community safety literature.

;s others have pointed out 4illiams 199& elly 199#( we need to be totally clear-

eyed and rebut romanticised notions of ?community as being more democratic* open

and less subject to ine6uitable power relations of dominant masculinity and other

socially structured divisions( are simply misleading. ;s elly argues Cthe stress on

similarity in definitions of community means that variable e8periences of social life

that accrue by virtue of gender* class* race* age and se8uality cannot be acknowledged*

let alone studiedP 199#= 71 my emphasis(.


15/25

focus is a deeply problematic one as it diverts attention once more( from violent

crimes against women which for the most part do not tae place in public space and

which* importantly* are committed by insidersin the community& male partners and

relatives. and ?whose safety> they are in fact

addressing.

4here notions of both ?community and ?safety were taen up by left-oriented

worers)activists who saw welfarist strategies as a better ways of combating crime

than situational crime prevention Killing and /arton 1997(* nevertheless* as seen

above* in most cases orientation towards ?community safety and ?fear reduction

tended to focus attention on crime in public spaces* such as young people and crime*

marginalising crime such as domestic violence which occurs in the private sphere

'rawford 199"= :7(.


16/25

to the dominant understanding of domestic violence and the conse6uent focus on

agency)state responses to domestic violence and partly to gendered discourses of

caring which < loo at now.

&estern !nderstanding of domestic violence and the foc!s on social agencies

efinitions of domestic violence have tended to focus on violence within the intimate*

heterose8ual couple hiding the way in which impacts of such violence ripple outwards

affecting children* other members of the family* members of friendship groups and

members of the wider community* such as neighbours. !oreover* the focus on more

e8ceptional incidentsof violence has lead to a focus on improving the response of

social agencies* such as the police. esigned to act on e8ceptional incidents* social

agencies can wor intensively with individuals in crisis i8but for relatively limited

periods of time elly 1999(. his in turn unwittingly strengthens the

conceptualisation of male abuse of power in the home as a one-off crisis incident

rather than as a process* hiding the cumulative effect of seemingly ?minor

infringements of womens emotional and physical integrity over time. he womens

refuge movement has wored with feminist principles* prioritising shelter and services

to safeguard women and childrens safety and survival* and their wor too has tended

to avoid wider community involvement* primarily for reasons of security* but also due

to limitations of funding and resources. 3outhall /lac 3isters have argued that state

bacing can generate more positive responses in the minority ethnic community from

its leaders Kupta :00(. For these reasons nowledge of informal and community

responses to women e8periencing male abuse is relatively limited in the west.

1#


17/25

he focus on formal agency wor has also inadvertently amplified the separation of

public from private which* as elly says 199#(* is ironic considering the original aims

and thining of the womens movement. !oreover* the separation of formal from

informal support has hidden the e8tent to which both aspects of support intersect with

each other. ;wareness of the inter-related nature of informal and formal support for

women trying to stop the violence* have the abusive man leave* and)or trying to leave

themselves* is under-e8plored.

'endered disco!rses of caring

Finally* gendered discourses* through which women construct their social identities as

caring* and which assume womens continuing availability as carers* also underpin the

relative neglect of informal support for women in the community. < argue that

gendered discourses* through which women construct their social identities as caring*

and which assume womens continuing availability as carers* underpin the relative

neglect of informal support for women in community spaces. Finch 199( notes a

shift away from the problems of institutional care towards a valorisation of the

?healing virtues of communities at the core of caring discourse in the L& whilst this

is in itself a problematic discourse it does not seem to have impacted on responding to

violence against women in the home. wigg 1990( and Lngerson 1990( argue that

gendered discourse on caring taes for granted the availability of women as unpaid

carers* which raises the 6uestion as to who does the caring when it is women who are

in dangerous and harmful situations.

17


18/25

he feminist literature is itself problematic in dichotomising a distinction between on

the one hand caring for dependent persons who are not able to care for themselves and

caring for those who can manage well on their own Beira and 3araceno :00:* p. #:(.

'learly this is meant to distinguish between women caring for able-bodied husbands*

who could well loo after themselves* as opposed to caring for children.

Lnfortunately this conceptualisation polarises ?those who are dependent from ?those

who can manage well on their own failing to recognise the many degrees of

dependence in between. ependence for the adult woman is therefore seen as rather

negative and degrading and this results in a problem locating women who are

survivors of domestic violence. 2ague* !ullender and ;ris* for e8ample* argue that

abused women should notbe seen as dependent* saying Cabused women continue to be

viewed as dependent* just as they were probably treated during the abuseE :00* p.

1#(. here is a problem here in that whilst survivors are not wholly dependent*

nevertheless they have been victimised and do need support* help and care. !oreover*

they are in need of longer term support and so varying degrees of dependence will

e8ist over varying lengths of time for different women. he need for support is present

throughout all our lives but it becomes crucial at times of transitionlie ?leaving a

violent relationship where* in many cases* women find themselves with severely

depleted support networs 4ilco8 :000a* :000b(.

oncl!sions

he philosophy of the community safety approach to some degree attempted to shift

social policy away from Cretribution* deterrence and reform towards a concern with

prevention* harm reduction and ris managementE Karland :001* p. 171(. 3o* whilst

1"


19/25

community safety approaches were tending to move away from police-focused

strategies it may seem contradictory that a major strand of feminism attempts to tacle

domestic violence by involving the police and employing a strategy of criminalisation.

;t the same time that this strand of feminism aimed to achieve more effective

prosecution of perpetrators and support of victims* this was not without recognition of

the deeply problematic nature of woring with the state in relation to penality. ; ey

theme in the early literature was that the institutional systems to which women turn for

help can reproduce their dependence* and so reinforce their abuse* and prisons were

not seen as places that would help in tacling mens violence 3checter* l97"& obash

and obash* l979& 3tar* Flitcraft and Fra,ier* l979& 3tar and Flitcraft* l99# cited in

3tar* :00(.

;t least two things must be remembered* however* firstly that this was a struggle for

legitimacy* to gain acceptance for the idea that violence in the home is as serious as

violence on the streets and secondly that women and children( were losing their lives.

;nd women are still losing their lives every

year* on average two women are illed each wee by a current or former male partner8

2ome ffice 199"* :00(* so safety)security is* therefore* of the utmost priority in any

wor against domestic violence wherever and however this taes place.

;t root the two ?strands of organising differ along the fault-line of defining gender* of

acnowledging or not( the impact of differently gendered lives* and this creates

differences in strategies and policies. Hesponses to violence* through the law* policy

and practice* are shaped by choice of definition and this has concrete effects on

19


20/25

peoples lives. Feminists who conceptualise social life as thoroughly gendered have

viewed the patriarchal state as repressive and have tended to maintain some distance

from the state. ther feminists* and community safety worers* may envision the state

as problematic but open to reform* arguing that it is possible to change conditions of

gender ine6uality by woring with)through the state. here are obstacles and

opportunities in both approaches.

'ertainly community safety initiatives* such as local authority community safety

teams* provided alternative forums at which to raise violence against women and have

e8panded the remit of this wor. 2owever* the limits of community safety relate to a

gendered notion of safety* just as the gendered conception of ?welfare was a ey

faultline for social policy and practice. !oreover* moving beyond community safety

implies grasping issues of both enforcement and support* as the history of wor against

domestic violence maes abundantly clear.

:0


21/25

iNotes

< use the term domestic violence as it is the term most commonly recognised worldwide* despite reservations about its gender neutrality. 3ee Hadford :00( for an insightful discussion on definitional

debates in relation to domestic violence in the L. omestic violence comprises a constellation of behaviours ranging from verbal abuse)threats and coercion* to physical* se8ual violence* rape and

homicide.


22/25

@ricson* H.I. and 2aggerty* .. 1997 Policing the risk society* 8ford= 'larendon +ress.

Florida Kovernors as Force on omestic and 3e8ual Iiolence 1997 /lorida ,ortality +eview

Proect.

Karland* .4. :001 The culture of control- crime and social order in contemporary society*

8ford= 8ford Lniversity +ress.

Killing* . and /arton* ;. 1997 ?'rime prevention and community safety= a new home for social

policy* Critical Social Policy5: ;ugust pp. #-".

Koodey* J. 1999 ?;dolescence and the socialisation of gendered fear*


23/25

elly* B. 199# ?ensions and possibilities= enhancing informal responses to domestic violence*


24/25

and social control* Bondon= !acmillan*1::-1.

3tano* @. ;. 199" ?4arnings to women= police advice and womens safety in /ritain


25/25

4omen and @6uality Lnit :00 Cost of domestic violence- interim findings* researched by 3ylvia

4alby* Lni of Beeds. www.womenande6ualityunit.gov.u

Gearnshire* 3. 1997 M;nalysis of cohortM*

Documents

Community Safety and Domestic Violence